On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Joe Maimon<jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> "The AC believes that Policy Proposal
> #92 has some merit in concept, but does not believe that the problem
> addressed is immediate nor of sufficient scope currently. Furthermore,
> the benefits presumed may be achieved in ways other than using the
> discrete pools for address allocation. We hope that the author continues
> to discuss this issue with the AC and community."
>> I believe there are timeliness issues involved, especially as it
> pertains to routing policy, as well as an interest in dispelling
> uncertainty with regards to ipv6 rollout which may be a factor in
> delaying migration.
>> I would suggest a more appropriate action would be to delay working on
> the proposal until it has had more time to mature in our minds,
> something like what happened with policy proposal 95, customer
> confidentiality.
>> Is it considered polite to defer to a policy proposal's author for a
> discussion petition? Ia a petition under consideration?
Hi Joe,
I don't plan to petition but I won't object if you want to.
I suggest, however, that you're right: judging from the response,
folks need more time to bounce the ideas around and consider what the
most important results of IPv6 addressing policy really are. That may
be less threatening if the ideas aren't looming overhead in the form
of a policy proposal that must be ratified or rejected on schedule.
At any rate, we can dust the proposal off at any time and use it as a
reference to write a better one.
Regards,
Bill
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.combill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004